Science Disproves Evolution

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:37 am

Pahu;1503647 wrote: Check this out:

Please don't ignore my questions, Pahu. I'm waiting for your answers. I know what you're going to post - you're going to ask me what questions you haven't answered. Please don't do that. Look back on the last three pages if you must, but please provide answers in your own words.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:37 am

Ahso!;1503648 wrote: Please don't ignore my questions, Pahu. I'm waiting for your answers. I know what you're going to post - you're going to ask me what questions you haven't answered. Please don't do that. Look back on the last three pages if you must, but please provide answers in your own words.
Some hope. At one point I thought he was actually coming up with some independent thought, as there was some text I hadn't seen pasted before - until I saw the accreditation at the end. Just more pasting - only from a new book. A book that even acknowledged the conflicting discrepancies in the supposedly flawless Bible. I thought he was actually making progress - I should have known better. Now that he is clearly on a losing streak again, he returns to the Bible According To Dolt Brown.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:41 pm

FourPart;1503659 wrote: Some hope. At one point I thought he was actually coming up with some independent thought, as there was some text I hadn't seen pasted before - until I saw the accreditation at the end. Just more pasting - only from a new book. A book that even acknowledged the conflicting discrepancies in the supposedly flawless Bible. I thought he was actually making progress - I should have known better. Now that he is clearly on a losing streak again, he returns to the Bible According To Dolt Brown.He apparently owns or runs the website he does his copy/paste to.

That's his game, to have lots of links to his websites.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:54 am

Complex Molecules and Organs 6

An adult human brain contains over 10^14 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections (d), more than all the soldered electrical connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel (e).

d. “The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10^15 or a thousand million million. ... a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth. Denton, pp. 330–331.

A more recent neuron estimate for humans is at least 85 billion. [See “Understanding Memory Science News, 19 March 2016, p. 4.

“... the human brain probably contains more than 10^14 synapses ... Deborah M. Barnes, “Brain Architecture: Beyond Genes, Science, Vol. 233, 11 July 1986, p. 155.

e. Marlyn E. Clark, Our Amazing Circulatory System, Technical Monograph No. 5 (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976).

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:57 am

There you go again, Pahu, ignoring the conversation. You should be banned.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:49 pm

Ahso!;1503707 wrote: There you go again, Pahu, ignoring the conversation. You should be banned.

He already has been from countless other forums.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:19 am

Fully-Developed Organs 1

All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a).

a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).

This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:

“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner. Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:06 am

Pahu;1503934 wrote: Fully-Developed Organs 1

All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a).

a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).

This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:

“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner. Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Sorry, bud, but that was an 1802 Theological treatise. Hardly warrants scientific consideration these days.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:19 pm

Still on the go eh? LOL

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:25 pm

An interesting new development - a dinosaur with feathers.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -evolution

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:24 pm

Yes. A recent program on TV investigated that theory. It does have some physical evidence to support it.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:26 am

FourPart;1504068 wrote: An interesting new development - a dinosaur with feathers.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -evolution

Did Some Dinosaurs Really Have Feathers?

A new dinosaur fossil discovered in China supposedly indicates that it had feathers. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the fossil of the Yutyrannus huali, the “beautiful feathered tyrant, was the largest yet found of the now famous Chinese “feathered dinosaurs.1 The technical description published in Nature claimed that a “gigantic feathered dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of China was recovered.2 But do these fossils really reveal former feathers, or does another interpretation, perhaps something as simple as decayed skin fibers, better explain them?

Below its headline, the Christian Science Monitor qualified the “feathered label: These “feathers are actually just “feather-like features, or “simple filaments.1 Similarly, the Nature text described them as “filamentous integumentary [skin] structures.2 Real bird feathers are complicated, with semi-hollow cores and branching barbs, but the fossil’s filaments apparently did not have these features. If the word “feather just means “filament, then could any filament—like a hair or plant fiber—not also be called a “feather?

Answering this correctly is important. Why would God have placed feathers on dinosaurs when, today at least, only birds have feathers? On the other hand, “The idea of protofeathers [feather-like filaments on dinosaurs] has strengthened the resolve of many palaeontologists that birds are direct descendents of theropod [lizard-hipped, three-toed] dinosaurs, even though these “feathers have been discovered on non-theropod dinosaurs, too.3

Also, neither dinosaur skin impressions nor original dinosaur skin has follicles similar to those that produce feathers in bird skin.4 What purpose would bird feathers serve on those tough dino hides? Plus, dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds because transmutating a dinosaur skeleton into a bird skeleton would have rendered the transitional creatures unfit, being unable to fly or walk properly.5 These Chinese tyrannosaur fibers, as with perhaps all the famous Chinese fossil dinosaur “feathers so far, are more straightforwardly interpreted as the fossilized fragments of partly decayed skin.

Skin contains collagen protein fibers that decay more slowly than the soluble biomaterials that surround them. The famous Chinese dinosaurs probably began rotting as they were transported by the waters of Noah’s Flood only 4,500 or so years ago, even as modern carcasses rot. The soluble flesh rotted first. The thickly woven collagen fibers would have soon rotted, too, but the surrounding mud or wet sand quickly turned to dry rock that inhibited growth of collagen-eating microbes.

Researchers in 2005 found an excellent match between partially decayed skin from a variety of animal carcasses and dinosaur “feathers then published. Even the evolutionary authors contended that calling dinosaur fibers “feathers was “misleading.6 And these new tyrannosaur fibers provide no evidence to overturn that analysis.

The idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds is also misleading. The poster child of Darwinian change is Archaeopteryx, an alleged link via therapod dinosaurs between reptiles and birds. However, unlike dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx had a large braincase for the increased motor control and sensory input that were required for flight. Theropods had a lizard-like pelvis that was distinct from a bird’s frame. Furthermore, Archaeopteryx had a robust furcula (wishbone), a trait characteristic of strong fliers—one that keeps flight muscles from crushing the bird’s delicate internal air sacs. No evidence supports the story that such fully formed wings with fused clavicles “evolved from the tiny, clavicle-free theropod forelimbs. Even claw measurements of Archaeopteryx fall within the range of true perching birds.7 It was a bird without a single transitional feature.

In addition, those who insist that dinosaurs evolved into birds have to willfully ignore the fossil bird prints found in rock layers containing some of the “earliest dinosaurs—the supposed ancestors of birds.8

An Archaeopteryx bird fossil from Solnhofen, Germany, was recently analyzed using new techniques that detect element ratios without destroying the material. The results indirectly, but certainly, identified original feather and bone proteins. It had the same biochemistry that comprises today’s feathers.9 Fossils show no evolution of feathers.

The original Archaeopteryx tissue also showed how young it must be. Its evolutionary age assignment is about 150 times older than its protein decay age estimate. So, not only does it look purposefully created, but it also appears to be recently fossilized. A separate study found that the supposed “feather filaments in another Chinese dinosaur from the same large fossil set as that containing this new tyrannosaur, called the Jehol Biota, were also original biochemicals.10, 11 They could persist in this state for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, but after a million or so years they would have spontaneously degraded to dust.

A feathered dinosaur may someday be discovered. But even then, feathers on a dinosaur would not solve evolution’s biophysical impasse of converting a reptile skeleton into that of a bird. And so far, the evidence for feathered dinosaurs is much better interpreted as decayed skin fibers. Overall, fossils show that dinosaurs and birds have always been separate creatures.12 And this is exactly what one would expect if dinosaurs and birds were created separately, each to reproduce “after their kind.13

Did Some Dinosaurs Really Have Feathers? | The Institute for Creation Research

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:29 am

There is one word to describe it. Transitional.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 6:30 am

FourPart;1504100 wrote: There is one word to describe it. Transitional.

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time

2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms

3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms | The Institute for Creation Research

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 7:45 am

Another posting that goes to show you never verify your source.

Here is a whole list of some of the transitional fossils your pasting claims do not exist. Not difficult to find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:53 am

FourPart;1504116 wrote: Another posting that goes to show you never verify your source.

Here is a whole list of some of the transitional fossils your pasting claims do not exist. Not difficult to find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

Your list shows a lot of animals, but where is there any evidence of transitions?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:49 pm

The lists show creatures with slight similarities gradually appearing, with those similarities gradually progressing - tiny changes as time goes by. These are all transitions. If the fairy story of the Creation were true ALL of these different creatures (including humans) would exist all at once from the very start. The fact is that they don't. The variety comes in like a tree - starting with the root stock, then gradually branching out as it grows.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:03 pm

FourPart;1504172 wrote: The lists show creatures with slight similarities gradually appearing, with those similarities gradually progressing - tiny changes as time goes by. These are all transitions. If the fairy story of the Creation were true ALL of these different creatures (including humans) would exist all at once from the very start. The fact is that they don't. The variety comes in like a tree - starting with the root stock, then gradually branching out as it grows.

All life forms were created with the ability to adapt to changes in their environment. up to a point. No life forms have been observed to change to a different kind.

When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment or any other way in nature or the lab.

A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.a

a . “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory ... Nilsson, p. 1186.

“In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature. Goldschmidt, p. 94.

“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme. Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

“Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised. Hitching, p. 61.

“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times. Grassé, p. 130.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 7.** Fruit Flies

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:18 pm

Pahu;1504178 wrote: All life forms were created with the ability to adapt to changes in their environment.

And that adaptation is called Evolution.

When changes are so minute, happening over millions of years, at which point do you define that one species changes into another? When you take a colour palette on a graphics program you can gradually change the colour from Red to Blue, but with each transitional change being totally unrecogniseable as being any change - untill you realise that the colour is totally different from the one you started with. At which point did it change from being Red to being Blue?

You say that a cat remains a cat, and a dog remains a dog, and you don't argue that all stemmed from the same original cat or dog type. OK, take that same principle. A primate is still a primate. A chimpanzee is a primate. A human is a primate. The genetic & skeletal structure leaves that much in absolutely no doubt, yet you cannot seem to accept that while all other 'kinds' can evolve from a root stock that primates do not.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 pm

This is Pahu's fatal fallacy. He redefines The Theory Of Evolution By Means Of Natural Selection (he must hate to see it typed that way) in is own image and then goes about disproving his own redefinition. And he's absolutely correct that Science does in fact disprove his version of Evolution. There's really nothing here to argue about. His definition of The Theory Of Evolution By Means Of Natural Selection is completely without merit.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:28 am

All life forms were created with the ability to adapt to changes in their environment.

FourPart;1504183 wrote: And that adaptation is called Evolution.

When changes are so minute, happening over millions of years, at which point do you define that one species changes into another? When you take a colour palette on a graphics program you can gradually change the colour from Red to Blue, but with each transitional change being totally unrecogniseable as being any change - untill you realise that the colour is totally different from the one you started with. At which point did it change from being Red to being Blue?

You say that a cat remains a cat, and a dog remains a dog, and you don't argue that all stemmed from the same original cat or dog type. OK, take that same principle. A primate is still a primate. A chimpanzee is a primate. A human is a primate. The genetic & skeletal structure leaves that much in absolutely no doubt, yet you cannot seem to accept that while all other 'kinds' can evolve from a root stock that primates do not.

Evolution requires change from one kind to another kind. This has never been observed. Adaption is not evolution since all life forms were created with the ability to adapt up to a point beyond which they cannot adapt. They all remain the same.

When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment or any other way in nature or the lab.

A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.a

a . “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory ... Nilsson, p. 1186.

“In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature. Goldschmidt, p. 94.

“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme. Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

“Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised. Hitching, p. 61.

“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times. Grassé, p. 130.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 7. Fruit Flies

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:37 am

Pahu;1504211 wrote: Evolution requires change from one kind to another kind. This has never been observed. Adaption is not evolution since all life forms were created with the ability to adapt up to a point beyond which they cannot adapt. They all remain the same.

When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment or any other way in nature or the lab.

A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.a

a . “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory ... Nilsson, p. 1186.

“In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature. Goldschmidt, p. 94.

“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme. Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

“Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised. Hitching, p. 61.

“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times. Grassé, p. 130.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 7.** Fruit Flies

Sorry, evolution is simply change. And we are really just now beginning to truly learn the relationships between some species and sub-species. Our method of classification has long been based on our own perception.

But, evolution is change. You don't get to write your own rules, simply to create a straw man to knock down.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:30 am

LarsMac;1504213 wrote: Sorry, evolution is simply change. And we are really just now beginning to truly learn the relationships between some species and sub-species. Our method of classification has long been based on our own perception.

But, evolution is change. You don't get to write your own rules, simply to create a straw man to knock down.There you go. Pahu doesn't care about anything other than setting out links to his two websites to generate traffic for indexing in order to spread his lies. That's all there is to this guy.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:04 pm

He keeps saying that Evolution is change from one kind to another kind. However, he fails to define just what is a 'kind'? At what point does a water based kind (such as a fish) evolve to be a water based kind, moving onto land (such as a mud skipper - still a fish kind, though), to an amphibian, such as an axolotyl (still a sort of fish, but with legs), to a newt (primarily water based kind, but air breathing), to a lizard, to a dinosaur, to a bird, etc. Each stage is a minor change, with obvious connections to the previous 'kind', but at what stage does it become a new 'kind'. By rights, if A + A = A, then A is the kind. But if A + A by some mutation results in B, just how different from A does B have to be to be considered different from A? It is so easy to create a smooth animation of the changes between species, in proven chronological sequence, and you would be at a loss to define exactly at what stage the species moved on to become another species. You have to be a totally blind fool not to recognise that.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:46 am

FourPart;1504244 wrote: He keeps saying that Evolution is change from one kind to another kind. However, he fails to define just what is a 'kind'? At what point does a water based kind (such as a fish) evolve to be a water based kind, moving onto land (such as a mud skipper - still a fish kind, though), to an amphibian, such as an axolotyl (still a sort of fish, but with legs), to a newt (primarily water based kind, but air breathing), to a lizard, to a dinosaur, to a bird, etc. Each stage is a minor change, with obvious connections to the previous 'kind', but at what stage does it become a new 'kind'. By rights, if A + A = A, then A is the kind. But if A + A by some mutation results in B, just how different from A does B have to be to be considered different from A? It is so easy to create a smooth animation of the changes between species, in proven chronological sequence, and you would be at a loss to define exactly at what stage the species moved on to become another species. You have to be a totally blind fool not to recognise that.

Where is there evidence any of the changes you mention ever took place?

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:55 am

Pahu;1504269 wrote: Where is there evidence any of the changes you mention ever took place?

You could start with reading Darwin's study on Finches in the Galapagos, since that is one of the early works that began the discussion.

A number of other references have been posted on this very thread, should you ever choose to read through it.

But, I suspect that you seldom read much of the other posts made here.

ItIt seems to me that you seldom, if ever actually read most of the tripe that you, yourself post here.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:30 pm

LarsMac;1504287 wrote: You could start with reading Darwin's study on Finches in the Galapagos, since that is one of the early works that began the discussion.

A number of other references have been posted on this very thread, should you ever choose to read through it.

But, I suspect that you seldom read much of the other posts made here.

ItIt seems to me that you seldom, if ever actually read most of the tripe that you, yourself post here.

DARWIN'S FINCHES

During Charles Darwin's five-year voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle, he visited the Galapagos, a group of islands in the Pacific more than 600 miles from the mainland of South America. He found several different finches (Geospizinae) on the Galapagos Islands. Although they all looked nearly alike, they had developed a number of different habits and diets, and a little cross-breeding between these 14 (some say 13, others 17) finches occurred. Yet they were all still finches. When Darwin arrived back in England, a friend told him that this was very significant. So Darwin, knowing nothing of modern genetics and the boundary imposed by DNA to changes across basic types, imagined that perhaps these birds were all different types—and evolution across types had indeed occurred.

If you will personally examine all the Galapagos Island finches (often called Darwin finches), you will find that they do indeed look just about alike. They are subspecies of a single parent species, which, at some earlier time, reached the island from South America. (If hummingbirds can fly across the Gulf of Mexico, finches ought to be able to be borne by storms to the Galapagos Islands.) An excellent collection of all 14 of these finches is in the California Academy of Science, in San Francisco. One scientist who carefully examined this collection, described it in these words:

"The Darwin finches are a rather drab gray to brownish colored group of birds, except of the almost fully black dorsal plumage of the male of some species. The whole collection had an appearance of general uniformity. Only the Certhidea, or Warbler, finches seemed truly distinctive.

"Were it not for the historical importance of these finches as one of the `pillars' of evidence for the evolution of adaptive variations, I doubt if much attention would be given them.

"If one were to remove all the species labels and arrange the Darwin finches from the largest to the smallest in body and bill size, complete integration of plumage coloration, although the smaller birds tend to have lighter gray feathers.

"If species are to be erected on such minute norms, then indeed we will be burdened with an almost infinite number of names."—Walter Lammerts, "The Galapagos Island Finches," in Why Not Creation? (1970), pp. 335, 360-361.

Darwin stumbled over the truth of species variation. He had never had a day of science training in school; and, when he saw a variety of finches, he decided that each was a different type of bird—and evolution had occurred! This gave him the idea that if variations go across species—from one basic type to another—then perhaps all the families, genera, and species descended from a common ancestor that created itself!

When Charles Darwin wrote his book, Origin of the Species, He gave many examples of variations within species, and tried to use them to prove evolution outside of true species.

All this was before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, the gene, the chromosome, DNA, and the DNA barrier to evolution across basic types. In his ignorance Darwin wrote down his theory and evolutionists today cling to it, fearful to abandon it.

One of the Galapagos finches learned to use a small stick to dig worms out of tree bark. The other finches could not do that, so Darwin decided that was a profound proof of evolution. At one time, the present writer had three ****atiels in his home; the parents and a daughter. The mother had learned how to open the cage door and hop out. Year after year, the others would watch her do it, without understanding how she accomplished the task. If permitted, she would do it dozens of times a day, yet the others never considered even trying to do it; although, with their natural curiosity, they would carefully watch her as she did it. Yet they all are the same species of bird; even the same lineage. People are the same way. Some can learn things that others cannot grasp. Yet that is not evolution from one species to another.

It is acknowledged by scientists that all dogs descended from a common ancestor, and all are dogs. Yet there are far greater differences among dogs than there were among Darwin's finches or than most other subspecies in the world.

Many other examples of variation within species could be cited. In south central Africa, the Pygmy and Masai tribes live not far from each other. One is the shortest group of people in existence today; the other, the tallest. Both are human beings; only the height is different.

Pigeon fanciers tell us there are more color variations among pigeons than among any other animal or bird in the world. That is the result of only a couple centuries of intensive breeding by fanciers in Europe and America. In spite of the variations, they can all interbreed and are just pigeons.

Within 14 years after writing Origin of the Species, Darwin confessed to a friend:

"In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations [faith and theorizing]¦ When we descend to details, we can't prove that no one species has changed¦ nor can we prove that the supposed changes... nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not."—Charles Darwin, letter to Jeremy Bentham, in Francis Darwin (ed.), Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25.

THE MOTHS AND THE FINCHES

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:51 pm

"... Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not."

And, of course, that was at the beginning of such studies. Many changing species have been found, since those days. And many very convincing links between various species have been found, as well.

Adaptation and Evolution.

Amazing stuff.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:05 pm

Good grief I'm a monkey's uncle. LOL

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:12 pm

Ted;1504330 wrote: Good grief I'm a monkey's uncle. LOL

Or is that an Uncey's Monkle?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:59 am

Fully-Developed Organs 2

There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes (b), skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing (c).

b. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.

“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [Darwin believed possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder. Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.

And yet, Darwin admitted that:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.

Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit. Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies, Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:

“Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye. Ibid.

To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have “tissues that might become placentas. However, when pressed, “Reznick admits that the [guppylike fish’s] placenta might not be as sophisticated as the mammalian placenta [or the eye of any organism]. Ibid.

“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful—and not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose? Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.

c. “Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, p. 23.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:39 pm

All you ever do is to paste & paste & paste. You never answer a straight question. You constantly refer to animals being of a certain 'kind'. Despite my asking you on multiple occasion, not once have you ever defined what you consider to be a 'kind'. You say that a dog is a 'kind'. You say that a cat is a 'kind' You also accept that 'kinds' evolve within these 'kinds' However, you seem to refuse to respond to the fact that humans are part of the primate 'kind', just as are monkeys & apes.

You also deny that there are any transitional species to be found between 'kinds'. Ok - you describe just what would constitute a transitional species, and I will find one to fit that description. Remember, though, that would have to be on the chronological timeline, not for a sudden leap sideways, which you seem to think is what Evolution is. Such as, first there were basic fish, then came mud skippers, then came salamanders, then came newts, then came lizards, etc. Each is a gradual progression over time, and at each stage the similarities with the former stage are clearly evident. However, there reaches the point at which one can no longer define a lizard as being the same 'kind' as a fish.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:16 am

FourPart;1504524 wrote: All you ever do is to paste & paste & paste. You never answer a straight question. You constantly refer to animals being of a certain 'kind'. Despite my asking you on multiple occasion, not once have you ever defined what you consider to be a 'kind'. You say that a dog is a 'kind'. You say that a cat is a 'kind' You also accept that 'kinds' evolve within these 'kinds' However, you seem to refuse to respond to the fact that humans are part of the primate 'kind', just as are monkeys & apes.

I believe you are right in saying humans and apes are physically the same kind. The difference is humans were created in the image of God, which includes mind, spirit and free will.

You also deny that there are any transitional species to be found between 'kinds'. Ok - you describe just what would constitute a transitional species, and I will find one to fit that description.

Okay, let's say a dinosaur is changing into a bird. What would be some of the changes necessary for that to happen:

Wings: The proposed ancestors of birds are thought to have walked on their hind legs. Their diminutive forelimbs had digits similar to a hand, but consisting only of digits one, two, and three. Bird forelimbs consist of digits two, three, and four. Today, most hold that ground-dwelling theropods learned to run fast and jump to catch insects and eventually used arms with frayed scales to fly. But flight requires fully formed, interlocking feathers and hollow bones, not to mention the flight muscles and keeled sternum to anchor the muscles.

Feathers: Feathers are not at all similar to scales. Even if scales were frayed, they would not be interlocking and impervious to air as are feathers. Actually, feathers are more similar to hair follicles than scales. Could such precise design arise by mutation? In all the recent discoveries of dinosaur fossils with "feathers," the "feathers" are merely inferred. What is actually present is better described as thin filaments which originate under the skin.

Bones: Birds have delicate, hollow bones to lighten their weight while dinosaurs had solid bones. The placement and design of bird bones may be analogous to those in dinosaurs, but they are actually quite different. For example, the heavy tail of dinosaurs (needed for balance on two legs) would prohibit any possible flight. And besides, the theropods were "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs, not "bird-hipped" as would be expected for bird ancestors.

Warm blooded: Birds are warm-blooded with exceptionally high metabolism and food demands. While dinosaur metabolism is in question, all modern reptiles are cold-blooded with a more lethargic life style.

Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals.

Other organs: The soft parts of birds and dinosaurs, in addition to the lungs, are totally different. A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird.

Thus, the dinosaur-to-bird transition is blocked by many major obstacles, not just the acquisition of feathers. It gets even worse, for in order to make the transition, most if not all of the definitive characteristics must be acquired simultaneously. They all must be present or else none serves a valid purpose. Evolutionary stories don't fit the facts.

What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird? | The Institute for Creation Research

Remember, though, that would have to be on the chronological timeline, not for a sudden leap sideways, which you seem to think is what Evolution is. Such as, first there were basic fish, then came mud skippers, then came salamanders, then came newts, then came lizards, etc. Each is a gradual progression over time, and at each stage the similarities with the former stage are clearly evident. However, there reaches the point at which one can no longer define a lizard as being the same 'kind' as a fish.

All of those animals are complete and show no transition into the other.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:26 am

Distinct Types

If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. In fact, some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill somewhat like that of a duck—a bird. It has webbed forefeet like those of an otter and a flat tail like that of a beaver. The male platypus can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. The duckbilled platypus is found only in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought that a clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals—a logical conclusion if one believed that each animal must be very similar to other animals. In fact, the platypus is perfectly designed for its environment. Such “patchwork animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the so-called “evolutionary tree.

Figure 5: Duckbilled Platypus. The duckbilled platypus is found only in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought that a clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals—a logical conclusion if one believed that each animal must be very similar to other animals. In fact, the platypus is perfectly designed for its environment.

There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group (a). Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence (b).

a. “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field. Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16. Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.

“Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation. Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution, Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]. Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 210.

“The fact that all the individual

species must be stationed at the extreme periphery of such logic [evolutionary] trees merely emphasized the fact that the order of nature betrays no hint of natural evolutionary sequential arrangements, revealing species to be related as sisters or cousins but never as ancestors and descendants as is required by evolution. Denton, p. 132.

b. “...no human has ever seen a new species form in nature. Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Jan 01, 2017 4:31 pm

Whatever turns your crank.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:20 am

I think you are missing deep time and death out of your argument. There has been life on Earth for over 3.5 billion years according to Science. That's a LOT of time for mutations to happen. However, most mutations are not beneficial to the organism since they are random and they die without breeding. One in a million or a billion mutations ARE beneficial to the organism and give that creature an advantage, so those mutations are passed on.

Et voila: Evolution.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Jan 02, 2017 1:53 pm

Clodhopper;1504861 wrote: I think you are missing deep time and death out of your argument. There has been life on Earth for over 3.5 billion years according to Science. That's a LOT of time for mutations to happen. However, most mutations are not beneficial to the organism since they are random and they die without breeding. One in a million or a billion mutations ARE beneficial to the organism and give that creature an advantage, so those mutations are passed on.

Et voila: Evolution.

The time mentioned is based on flawed dating methods:

Radiometric Dating Flaws

For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.

Along with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:

• First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.

• Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.

• Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.

These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods.

Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable | The Institute for Creation Research

Questionable Dating of Bloody Mosquito Fossil | The Institute for Creation Research

Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable | The Institute for Creation Research

The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates | The Institute for Creation Research

Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted? | The Institute for Creation Research

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jan 02, 2017 2:02 pm

Institute for creation research. Clearly unbiased...Ok. I'll leave you to it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 02, 2017 2:30 pm

Clodhopper;1504886 wrote: Institute for creation research. Clearly unbiased...Ok. I'll leave you to it.It's one of Pahu's own websites I believe. It gets updated anytime after Pahu gets caught flatfooted.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Jan 02, 2017 6:20 pm

A lot of wishful thinking as well.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:07 am

All cults require wishful thinking whether it's based on faith or pseudo intellectualism.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:02 pm

??????

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:24 am

Altruism 1

Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save another—sometimes the life of another species (a). Natural selection, which evolutionists say selects individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic (self-sacrificing) “individuals. How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited? Its possession tends to prevent the altruistic “individual from passing on its genes for altruism (b)?*

a. “...the existence of altruism between different species—which is not uncommon—remains an obstinate enigma. Taylor, p. 225.

Some inherited behavior is lethal to the animal but beneficial to unrelated species. For example, dolphins sometimes protect humans from deadly sharks. Many animals (goats, lambs, rabbits, horses, frogs, toads) scream when a predator discovers them. This increases their exposure but warns other species.

b. From an evolutionist’s point of view, a very costly form of altruism occurs when an animal forgoes reproduction while caring for another individual’s young. This occurs in some human societies where a man has multiple wives who share in raising the children of one wife. More well known examples include celibate individuals (such as nuns and many missionaries) who devote themselves to helping others. Such traits should never have evolved, or if they accidentally arose, they should quickly die out.

Adoption is another example:

“From a Darwinian standpoint, going childless by choice is hard enough to explain, but adoption, as the arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins notes, is a double whammy. Not only do you reduce, or at least fail to increase, your own reproductive success, but you improve someone else’s. Since the birth parent is your rival in the great genetic steeplechase, a gene that encourages adoption should be knocked out of the running in fairly short order. Cleo Sullivan, “The Adoption Paradox, Discover, January 2001, p. 80.

Adoption is known even among mice, rats, skunks, llamas, deer, caribou, kangaroos, wallabies, seals, sea lions, dogs, pigs, goats, sheep, bears, and many primates. Altruism is also shown by some people who have pets—a form of adoption—especially individuals who have pets in lieu of having children.

Humans, vertebrates, and invertebrates frequently help raise the unrelated young of others:

“...it is not clear that the degree of relatedness is consistently higher in cooperative breeders than in other species that live in stable groups but do not breed cooperatively. In many societies of vertebrates as well as invertebrates, differences in contributions to rearing young do no t appear to vary with the relatedness of helpers, and several studies of cooperative birds and mammals have shown that helpers can be unrelated to the young they are raising and that the unrelated helpers invest as heavily as close relatives. Tim Clutton-Brock, “Breeding Together: Kin Selection and Mutualism in Cooperative Vertebrates, Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 69.

Six different studies were cited in support of the conclusions above.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:07 pm

Actually, Christopher Boehm lays out a very good argument for the evolutionary origins of altruism and moral judgement in his book, Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism and Shame.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:06 am

Pahu;1504884 wrote: The time mentioned is based on flawed dating methods:

Radiometric Dating Flaws

For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.

Along with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:

• First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.

• Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.

• Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.

These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods.

Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable | The Institute for Creation Research

Questionable Dating of Bloody Mosquito Fossil | The Institute for Creation Research

Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable | The Institute for Creation Research

The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates | The Institute for Creation Research

Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted? | The Institute for Creation Research
Ah - the old chestnut about Radiometric Dating being inaccurate. Well, yes, there have been a few inconsistencies with Radiometric Dating - the rare occurences that Creationists pounce on, whilst ignoring all the other accurate ones.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/radio ... -does-work

Furthermore, Radiometric Dating is not the ONLY form of dating. There are many others, and even if one of these methods is questionable, all the other ones will come up with validating results, so if a glitch with 1 Radiometric sample shows 5 years, while all the others show 5 million years, then Creationists will jump on that one glitch, and conveniently ignore all the rest which all agree on 5 million. Science accepts the element of error. That is the nature of Science. Science deliberately look for ways to prove itself wrong by trying to see if something can be validated in different ways or not. With dating methods they invariably are validated in all the other ways.

If you want to come up with a single incident where Radiometric Dating has supposedly been incorrect, then do so - but also include the cross referencing dating results from the Crystal Fusion, Uranium Series, Trapped Charge, Thermoluminescence, etc Dating methods for the same sample. When 999 people say that Black is Black & 1 person says that Black is White, then the Scientific way is to accept that Black is Black. The Creationist way is to say that the methods determining the colours are unreliable, because that one person says that Black is White. They're also likely to keep quiet about the fact that that one person also happens to be a Creationist posing as a Scientist.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:09 pm

"As one scholar wrote "Thank God for Evolution". According to Matthew Fox Song "Spong is a truth-teller who stards up to the ignorance spawned by a 'gentile heresy' that has hijacked the story of Jesus for far too long" (Jacket of the book "Biblical Literalism:A Gentile Heresy". Some do not like the use of the word "heresy" however he calls a spade a spade. It is about time.some folks did.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:48 am

Extraterrestrial Life?

No verified form of life, which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differ in some respects from life on earth (a). [See “Is There Life in Outer Space?]

Figure 6:Mars Lander. Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking Landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.

If traces of life are found on Mars, they may have come from comets and asteroids launched from Earth during the flood—as did salt and water found on Mars. [A prediction, later supported by a NASA discovery, is on page 281. For a full understanding, see pages 270-321]

a. The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades, Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:24 pm

Pahu;1505467 wrote:

Extraterrestrial Life?

No verified form of life, which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differ in some respects from life on earth (a). [See “Is There Life in Outer Space?]

Figure 6:Mars Lander. Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking Landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.

If traces of life are found on Mars, they may have come from comets and asteroids launched from Earth during the flood—as did salt and water found on Mars. [A prediction, later supported by a NASA discovery, is on page 281. For a full understanding, see pages 270-321]

a. The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades, Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

"Yet" is the missing operative here.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:36 am

More of t he same. More wishful thinking.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:55 am

I remember you spouting that it had been proven that there had never been any water on Mars - then water was discovered on Mars. Now you are similarly spouting (or, more to the point, pasting someone else's spoutings) that microbes have not been found on Mars. Given the tiny amount of material we have to actually run tests on under laboratory conditions even this might not seem surprising, but what little we have has been tested, and it seems that there COULD, indeed, be traces of microbial life.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2005261/l ... r-mission/

Is there life on Mars? Evidence of aliens may have been found on the Red Planet – in 2007

The difference between Science & your way of thinking is that it continues to look for more evidence to support ideas one way or another. If it proves there was life there, that is evidence. If it proves there is no life there, that too is evidence. Science doesn't care one way or the other. The only thing that Science is bothered about is collecting facts. If it stuck to Creationist ideology we wouldn't even be searching as Creationists are convinced they already have all the answers, despite having no evidence to back it up, and even when there is evidence that goes against their beliefs, they simply ignore or, worse still, deny it.